Talk:List of best-selling game consoles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Missing Devices

3DO Is Purposely Missing

3DO

Shouldn't the 3DO be here? It's page says that it sold 2 million units. I don't know how to edit it. 135.196.89.179 (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Its page cites GamePro. That article is unreliable. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

3DO Interactive Multiplayer

Why the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer is missing from the best selling consoles? It sold 2 millions as stated on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_home_video_game_consoles. Therefore there is a contradiction between these two pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simbadwiki (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This is being discussed here. Basically, that article has too many sales errors to be considered reliable. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Atari Lynx

Where is the Atari Lynx, it sold over 5 million hand held units...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Lynx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.113.149 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That number is not reliably sourced. I've restored the most recent reliably-sourced number to Atari Lynx from that article's history. Anomie⚔ 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Atari XEGS

[1]

Computer Removal

Commodore 64 and ZX Spectrum are not consoles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.32.121 (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the iPod Touch?

It is also a game console, isn´t it? --Maurice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.196.191 (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not. It's a music player. It doesn't even have hardcover-released games.--The Rogue Leader 11:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_game_console#Apple_iPhone_.2F_iPod_Touch_.2F_iPad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.200.192.1 (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Rogue Leader is right - it is not a games console. It could be called a "handheld gaming device", but not a "handheld games console" in the same way that a pen and paper could not be called a board-game just because you can play hangman on it, or any random PC could not be called a gaming rig just because it can play solitaire. A games console is a device who's primary purpose is to play games.

Also, wikipedia is not valid evidence of anything - only its citations are. Any old person can add the iPod Touch to the list if they wish, just as they could add a bulldozer or a tiger or Albert Einstein to the list. Sure, those things are more likely to be removed as vandalism, but I think you probably get the idea.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Rogue Leader is not quite right. By his logic, 'iPod touch' is not even music player, because playing music is not actually primary use of this device, too. Id est 'iPod touch' is no more music player than game console.

Also, this page features sales of 'Nokia NGage', which is mobile phone platform. So including this and not including 'iPod touch', which is not even mobile phone platform and thus much closer to actual game console concept, is utterly ridiculous double standard.

This needs to be discussed and resolved properly. This inconsistency, which is prohibited by Wikipedia principles, should be eliminated by excluding 'NGage' and the like from this list, or, more properly, inclusion of it, as well as 'iPod Touch'/'iPhone', in some kind of hybrid devices section. DenisRS (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The N-Gage was designed specifically with gaming in mind. It was marketed as a gaming phone and has specific little cartridge things for the games. The iPod touch/iPhone on the other hand would be better described as a PDA/media player and Smartphone respectively than as gaming devices. They are as much gaming devices as PCs are - they can be used for games and many people use them to play games. They are a gaming platform, but the devices themselves are not gaming devices. I doubt very much that many people bought the N-Gage who didn't plan to play games on. PCs, iPhones and iPod Touches on the other hand have a far broader target audience. In a nut shell, the N-Gage is a gaming phone, the iPod Touch is a media player that you can play games on; that is the distinction being made. Alphathon™ (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To be correct, 'iPod touch' was and is marketed primarily as gaming platform. One may check Apple's advertisements and the casdade of "falling off" images of 'iPod touch' running games is biggest thing there in all of those advertisements.

So yes, 'iPod touch' is media player, but gaming is actually its main marketing and use point. Thus 'iPod touch'/'iPhone', as well as 'NGage' should be included in some kind of hybrid devices section. DenisRS (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the marketing for the devices includes gaming, no doubt about it, but they are not marketed as a gaming platform with other, additional features (like the PSP for example, which also has things like a web browser, music player, comic reader etc, although I don't know how much of that goes into the advertising to the general public) they are marketed as convergence devices, that is devices with multiple standard functions but with no specific primary function. Also bear in mind that for the iPod, they don't really need to heavily market it as a music player - the name iPod does that for them, as it has become synonymous with music players. Yes, iOS is a gaming platform, but so is Windows, Android, generic J2ME, Mac OS X (to a certain degree, more so now it has steam) etc. The iPod touch is not a games console; it is a device that can play games. Alphathon™ (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

'Nokia NGage' was also advertised not only as game platform, but also as mobile phone. In fact, mobile phone function is always listed first when NGage is described. Thus 'iPod touch'/'iPhone', as well as 'NGage' should be included in some kind of hybrid devices section. DenisRS (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. The N-Gage is a phone/games console. The iPod Touch is a convergence device. Almost every modern phone can play games of some description, just like the iPod Touch/iPhone, as can every PC. Do you want to list them as well? Also, there is another point to be made: what's the point? The whole point of a list like this is to provide a comparison between similar devices, but having the iPod Touch/iPhone(/iPad I suppose) adds nothing as you are not comparing like with like. Even the N-Gage is on shaky ground as it is also a phone, but it is far closer to being a dedicated gaming system than the iPod Touch etc.

Finally, your last post makes no sense at all; you seem to be saying N-Gage is a games device and a phone, therefore the iPod Touch should be included. Regardless of whether the N-Gage belongs here or what category it should be in, you have to make a case for the iPod Touch on its own merits, not by comparing it to things that are already there (unless the two things that are being compared are the same essentially), especially when it is not cut and dry that the thing that's already there is valid itself.

P.S. it's N-Gage, not NGage.

Alphathon™ (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Famicom Disk System?

It has 7 best-selling games and it's absent here. Why? I assume it has something to do with people buying disks again since they're prone to damage or maybe there just isn't a credible source. However, those are just things I assume happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.32.121 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Game & Watch

Seeing as the Game & Watch systems sold over 43 million units [2] it should be added to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:6B80:5A1F:A8FE:29EE:4FEA:6368 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are handheld electronic games, not handheld game consoles. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Mega CD removal

As the mega CD is an add-on rather than a standalone console should it really be in a list of best selling consoles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.169.77 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Also the Famicom disk system, it's just an add-on. And why the Nintendo Color TV Game? it's a PONG clone, so you gotta include all PONG consoles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.154.75.33 (talk • contribs)

Neo Geo & Neo Geo CD for SNK and SC-3000 & SG-1000 for Sega

Could someone please add these? I added the Sega 32X to Segas, but I couldn't find sales figures for the SC-3000 or SG-1000.--FifthCylon (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No. This is a list only of systems that have 1million+ sales. See the first paragraph on the page. Of course if the SC-3000 or SG-1000 have sold 1mil+ they can be added, but the 32X is not valid (and has been removed). Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Sega Master System

The master system should be on here shouldn't it? In the UK it did much better than some of the other consoles mentioned on here.

According to the console wars page here on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars) Sega Master System sold 13 million.

Given the sources that are used on that page, it really shouldn't be listed there either. One is dead and the other is a fansite and not a reliable source. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that 13 million figure originated at a fansite that has not given any sources for the info, which seems in contradiction to the few sales estimates that exist for the SMS. If you want more info, the talk page for the Sega Master System has it all laid out. Indrian (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo

Should 3DS be combined with DS?

Nintendo has started releasing sales figures for the Nintendo 3DS, which has already reached 3.61 million sales so I have added it to the list. Nintendo does not include these sales in the sales for Nintendo DS, as despite the similar name they consider it a successor rather than a new version of the same console. I personally don't care whether we list it that way or we combine it into DS as is already done for DS Lite, DSi, and DSi XL; I'm just starting the discussion to people can discuss it. Anomie⚔ 11:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not - the 3DS is the successor to DS, not a new version of it. It has completely different hardware (GPU, memory, screen, inputs etc) and software. To put it another way, the DS lite is like the PS2 slimline (smaller redesign), while the DSi is like the PSX (the PS2-based DVR, not the PS1) in that it is basically a PS2 but has additional features. In this analogy, the 3DS is pretty much equivalent to the PS3 - it is certainly not a PS2, but is part of the same series and shares a number of things with its predecessor (basic controller design for example). For a proper comparison of the hardware see 3DS#Technical comparison. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 11:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not.--SexyKick 18:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You guys do realize, right, that every previous version of the DS line has had different hardware? (I'd like to thank you, Alphathon. The page you linked contained the information I need. I recommend reading your own souces from now on, mkay?)

Processor

DS/DS lite: 67 MHz ARM9 and 33 MHz ARM7

DSi & XL: 133 MHz ARM9 and 33 MHz ARM7

3DS: Not listed on page.

RAM

DS/DS Lite: 4 MB SRAM w/ expandability via game boy advance slot

DSi & XL: 16 MB PSRAM

3DS: 128 MB FCRAM

Like every single other DS model, it's just changed slightly from the previous one hardware-wise. Check the table. For the most part it's true.

Either the 3DS' sales need to be included with the DS', or the DSi & XL need to be removed. Only way to be consistent. 67.193.225.209 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the rationale for combining the Gameboy and the Gameboy Color into a single entry? 75.40.73.243 (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@67.193.225.209: It is not at all the same. The upgrades from DS (Lite) to DSi (XL) were to facilitate DSi Ware, and possibly other things (not sure as I don't own one). The analogy I used before still stands: the PSX has a built-in TV tuner and hard drive, as well as DVR software, but it is still a PS2. The same is true of the PSP - the PSP-2000, 3000 and Go have double the RAM of the original version; however, games cannot utilise it (at least not officially licensed games; homebrew can), and it was simply added to speed up the browser (and maybe things like video playback). All of them are still PSPs. The main difference here though is that the 3DS has a different processor than the DS/DSis; the DSi is a more powerful DS, the 3DS is a different beast altogether. The DS(i) has a propriatary Nintendo GPU, the 3DS has a Digital Media Professionals PICA200. The DS(i) has ARM9 and ARM7 CPUs, the 3DS has a different ARM processor. The 3DS is not a DS (except in the sense that the PS2 is a PlayStation, or the Xbox 360 is an Xbox).

@75.40.73.243: That's a good question, to which I personally don't know the answer. I'm not too familiar with GB/GBC systems/games myself, but from what little I do know, there is a great deal of overlap in terms of the games. The closest comparison I can come up with would be Kinect games: most 360 games are non-Kinect and just need a 360 (equiv. to GB games), some require Kinect (equiv. to the "only for GBC" titles) and others are "better with Kinect", i.e. Kinect can be used as an input device but isn't required. From what I understand, there are many GBC games that are also compatible with the original GB; obviously they don't display in colour, but they are compatible nonetheless.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo DS

Someone keeps changing the DS numbers, as of December 8th the Nintendo DS has sold 153.69M units making it the best selling game console of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.244.120 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wii U has sold over a million units.

I was just wondering when Wii U was going to be added to the list since it has surpassed a million units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqall2 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

According to VG Chartz, Wii U has already surpassed one million units. However Wikipedia considers VG Chartz a unrealiable source, so we just need a realiable one. --Apolo13 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nintendo's official sales figures for the quarter should be coming out in less than a month (around 23 January would be my guess). And as soon as they do, I'll update the sales figures here and everywhere else that references last quarter's official Nintendo sales figures as I've done for several quarters now. Personally, I don't see any particular need to rush it. Anomie⚔ 04:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Game Boy and Game Boy Color

I suggest you add a note about these consoles, since, despite the fact they are different systems (different CPU, no forward compatibility), they was put together in the list because Nintendo publishes only combined sales. And you could add the information that until abril, 1998, before Game Boy Color's release in late-1998, the Game Boy alone had sold 64.42 million units worldwide.[3]189.9.20.10 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not true, black colored cartridges worked on BOTH Game Boy and Game Boy Color. Please do your homework before posting.76.253.50.238 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sony

"Recorded sales" and "production shipments"

PS2/PSP figures are incorrect

The information on this page is giving false total figures by adding differing accounting methods to arrive at it's PS2 and PSP total hardware sales. In March 2007 Sony changed their accounting methods from "production shipments" to "recorded sales" aligning with the accounting methods Nintendo and Microsoft use. Unfortunately, Sony never gave an updated past "recorded sales" chart for PSP and PS2, though they did for PS3, leading to the current problem of adding differing accounting methodologies to arrive at a total figure that actually double counts some hardware units. For example, if we used the same methodology for PS3 ("production shipments" plus "recorded sales") it's current total would be near 2 million higher than the "recorded sales" figure Sony gives out. In some PR releases Sony has given updated figures with the new methodology though (example PS2 source: http://www.community.eu.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-2-General-Discussion/Happy-10th-Birthday-PlayStation-2/td-p/11909804, example PSP source:http://us.playstation.com/corporate/about/press-release/psp-sales-70-million-units-worldwide.html), so we can deduct that the current accurate hardware totals as of Sept 30th 2011 should be 152.3m for PS2 (rather than 154.59m as listed on wiki) and 71.3m for PSP (rather than 72.99m as listed on wiki). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.229.242 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Company Sales vs Shipped

Regardless of term used they are the same thing, sold items from one business to another and do not mean to end users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.169.77 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct, company sales is more descriptive to the article though.MilkStraw532 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is in reference to the Sony accounting methods, no they are not the same thing. "Production shipments" included produced inventory still in internal warehousing and logistics lines, while the new "sales" method does not. Despite Sony using the term "sales" these are still shipments as we understand them (sold in to retail) not actual sales (sold through to consumer). If you simply add Sony's two accounting methods, you're double counting millions of units and giving an incorrect total. The only way to arrive at a correct total is a Sony citation for total sales units, then adding reported sales units from that date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.229.242 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is your proof of this? a link, anything would be good to prove/disprove your point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.169.77 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's is the first reference to the change in accounting methods (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/07q1_sony.pdf). On Page 4, to quote, "Beginning with the quarter ended June 30, 2007, the method of reporting hardware and software unit sales has been changed from production shipments to recorded sales.". Sony then only went on to change past PS3 figures to the new "recorded sales" figure and in fact here's the figures of PS3 for production shipments in fiscal 06 (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/viewer/06q4/slide/image/13_image.jpg) showing 5.5 million units rather than the 3.5 million shown with the new accounting method sourced here (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html). If we applied the same formula to PS3 some are to PS2/PSP ("production shipments" through FY06 + "recorded sales" from FY07 on) then the current PS3 figure would be 53.8 million rather than 51.8 million. We would be double counting units and giving an incorrect figure, this is exactly what's being done for PS2/PSP in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.229.242 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation 3

Playstation 3 sales number is wrong

The only reliable sales number is 63.9 million from (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html) adding the sales from (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdata_ces_sale_e.html) is wrong as it's both PS3 and PS2 numbers combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushio01 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Official PS3 shipped figures

From 11th November 2006 - 31st March 2012 = 63.9 million ( http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html ) From 1st April 2013 - 30th September 2013 = 3.1 million ( http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/13q2_sonypre.pdf [see page 16] ) Total 67 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushio01 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't include an entire FY of sales. The only possibility I see is adding the February 2013 PR number with sales from FY 2013. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 sales figure

Would it not be more appropriate to have the PlayStation 3 figure represented as >80 million as every site/article I have read shows it being greater than 80 million, just no specific number greater. Even the PlayStation article represents it as such. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can add that for PS3, Vita, and PSP. I think the notes provide enough context to back that. « Ryūkotsusei » 23:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Added, and thanks for the input. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PS3 sales

According to the link given on our page on the PS3, it has sold 86.46 million units. I'll edit that into both this page and the PS3's. (PiXel072401 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

A clear place to the PS3 console

PS3 sales shaould be higher than XB360 sales as it is mentioned in many sources (eg. vgchartz.com, etc) and the data in the table (PS3 83.2M, XB360 84M) is definitely outdated. Both consoles has somewhat higher numbers but, as XB360 almost stopped its sales, PS3 still goes on by a couple a million per year. So this position (somewhat 86M+ for PS3 against 84M+ to 85M for XB360) should be clear from the table which is not true now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.94.241.208 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please find those "etc" sources that do not cite VG Chartz figures. Otherwise refer to the edit notice posted in the article's edit window "A consensus has been found to indicate that VG Chartz is a bad source for this list, as it does not have actual sales figures or professional estimates. If you wish to start a review of this consensus, please discuss it at WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources." « Ryūkotsusei » 05:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Than just go from a point of common sense and try to calculate approximate amount of consoles sold from 2014 (at which period you have some data). That's ridiculous to insist that XB360 is higher than PS3 just because you do not like VGChartz. Are you working for Microsoft, man? The data IS outdated and you know that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.94.241.208 (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2015‎ (UTC)

You either have a reliable source (Which VG Chartz is not) or you don't. Anything more on our part would be original research, which we can't do. We must have reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a source, Ryūkotsusei. I've metioned it 2 times and edited the Wikipedia page 2 times and you reverted it 2 times. As it is stated in the X360 Ref., the X360 has sold 84 mio. As stated here by EEDAR (an NPD company group), the PS3 outsold the Xbox 360, which is widely know, by the way: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024054/Awesome-Video-Game-Data IMAGE: https://i.imgur.com/9MQRPcs.png So the PS3 is "at least" >84 and should be above the Xbox 360 table here. For whatever reason, you are reverting it all the time, even though we have NPD as a source here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Cripshay (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This is what we call WP:Original research. Because you found a source that says PS3 sold more (Based on a chart with no numbers or dating), combined with another source that says the X360 sold 84 million, you are synthesizing that PS3 sold 84.1 million. We can't do that here on Wikipedia. We need a reliable source, either Sony or a trusted source (Not VGChartz) that gives a specific number for PS3. -- ferret (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct, specifically, it violates the WP:SYNTH part of the WP:OR policy. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Vita sales

It's currently at 10 million due to a huge number of guesses by IGN. Now, I'm fine with adding estimates when they're stated as such, but I have an issue with using this as an actual figure in a chart like this. Thoughts, before I go and remove it? Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Do what you want. « Ryūkotsusei » 06:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

New PS4 numbers

Sony released a press statement today putting the PS4 at 35.9M http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/160105_e.html --Flounder19 (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Atari Consoles

Lots of mistakes here and things that need adjusting. Firstly total sales for the Atari Lynx were just shy of 3 million - see Retro Gamer magazine issue 129 (25 Years of Lynx) confirmed by Ex-Atari staff. Secondly it misses out sales of the XEGS - 250,000 (Retro Gamer issue 124). Atari Jaguar sales of 225,000 (already verified) and 7800 sales of over 5 million (3.77 for North America as already verified and rest of world sales of around 1.5 million) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.20.139 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors will need a copy of that Lynx article to verify it. Currently, this list mentions over 1.5 years of Lynx sales are missing in a note. I've created a section on Lynx's talk page (here) about it. 7800 sales were removed. Discuss 7800 sales on its talk page (here) or with that editor. Consoles need to meet or surpass a million units sold to be on this list. Regards, « Ryūkotsusei » 19:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Atari 2600

I am just curious why Atari 2600 is not in this list when even the article claims they sold over a million units and that it was Atari's most successful console yet their two less selling consoles are on the list.75.135.217.204 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. I see it on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sega

Genesis Sales Notice of Discussions

Discussions relating to this article have been started at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Mega Drive/Genesis sales and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4#Brazilian fan/blogsite?. Please comment there if you have any useful input. Anomie⚔ 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomad counted twice?

Why is the Nomad counted twice? If you check the link in the article, part of the 40 million Genesis units comes from Nomad sales (apparently that's considered a Genesis), but it's listed by itself and in Genesis sales. Why is it counted twice?76.253.50.238 (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Its still not the same type of console, but it would be an issue for the very last table. Anyway, all this is moot since sales from that GamePro source are being phased out. « Ryūkotsusei » 07:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dreamcast: Facts and Figures

Dreamcast

Three million Dreamcast units have been sold in North America, which is far below the company's original expectations. There will be no more units rolling off the production line, but the company, will continue to market and support it for another year. Sega kills Dreamcast production Sutton, Neil. Computer Dealer News17.5 (Mar 2, 2001): 31. After two-years of struggle, Sega decided to pull the plug on Dreamcast production in January and concentrate instead on its traditional strength of game software development. "We want to sell our games on popular machines," said another Sega official. Total shipments of PlayStation 2, since its launch of early 2000, reached 10 million units by March and is expected to top 30 million by March 2002. Sega sold some two million units of Dreamcast in Japan and four million abroad. The inventory of Dreamcast was also brought down to 100,000 units from two million at the start of 2001, they added. Sega to Start Online Gaming across Formats Jiji Press English News Service [Tokyo] 05 June 2001: 1. Sega sold approximately 83,500 Dreamcast units in June, according to an analyst who studied NPD TRSTS Video Game Group data. But the former first-party console maker is still overstocked with unsold Dreamcast inventory and wants to get rid of the remaining consoles. Sega to cut Dreamcast price Gaudiosi, John. Video Store Magazine23.31 (Jul 29-Aug 4, 2001): 6,31. By delivering a host of new product features, including instant messaging and broadband support, Planetweb and Sega continue to improve the interactive entertainment experience of over four million U.S. Sega Dreamcast users. Business Editors & High-Tech/Entertainment Writers. Business Wire [New York] 05 Sep 2001: 1. Sega Corp. will stop shipments of its Dreamcast video game console in early November, Chief Operating Officer Tetsu Kayama said Tuesday. The final round of shipments will be to the U.S. market. Kayama said the company expects Dreamcast's accumulated shipments to surpass the 10 million threshold. Sega had inventories of some two million units in February. Since the announcement of production suspension in March, Sega has been selling the console for 9,900 yen, 10,000 yen below the regular price. The company slashed its domestic inventories to 40,000 units by September. Sega to Halt Dreamcast Shipments in November Jiji Press English News Service [Tokyo] 23 Oct 2001: 1. Getting rid of inventory at slashed prices, Dreamcast sales only recently reached 10 million. Sega Changes Its Game Plan; Software profits banish the Dreamcast nightmare San Bernardino Sun (California) October 28, 2001 BYLINE: YURI KAGEYAMA or [4]

-- « Ryūkotsusei » 18:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

VGChartz

Some wrong values around here.

According to vgchartz.com ( here: http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/ ), many of the consoles here have wrong values. The most notable case being the fact that Playstation 2 is still in first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.28.197.239 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

VGChartz is not considered a reliable source. See previous discussions, WP:VG/RS, and WT:VG/RS. Anomie⚔ 02:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected

To stop the flood of IP users making changes based on the recent VGChartz numbers, I've semi-protected the page until after the official numbers for the current quarter should be released. Should anyone wish a review of VGChartz's reliability, please bring it up at WT:VG/RS and mention it here and at WT:VG. Anomie⚔ 03:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it was getting a bit tedious reverting these useless edits, but IPs are now flocking to the Nintendo DS article to say it's the best selling console in the world, incorrectly citing unreliable sources and cluttering up the article as a result.TJD2 (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that, if it gets too bad I'll semi-protect that one too. And PlayStation 2, I suppose. Anomie⚔ 03:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

XBox One and PS4 sales

XBox One sales now showing as 11 millions (PS4 still showing as 18.5 million as cited on the page). Should I go ahead an update this? The source I have isn't the greatest link, it is just: http://www.vgchartz.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.222.89 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

PlayStation sales vs Xbox 360 sales

I'm moderately new, so I don't know if secondary data is allowed, but (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-01-09-idc-game-consoles-discs-to-remain-revenue-mainstays-for-years-to-come) this report has said that the IDC report (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=238426#.UTISaDA3s8d) contained a 77 million number for the PS3 with a 76 million number for the Xbox 360. Should this change the rankings of the page? AJO191 (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We're already using the IDC figure alongside official Sony releases for the PS3, so I see no reason why we cannot (in principle) do the same for the 360. However, note that the official 360 figure is 75.9 million, while the IDC 360 figure is "about 76 million", and the official MS figure is actually more up to date than IDC's estimate. As such, it seems unnecessary to include IDC figure as well. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 19:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

UK Sales Figures

This article states UK sales of the ps3, xbox360 and wii as 1.9m, 3.2m and 4.9m respectively. However the Console Wars article has the sales of ps3, 360 and wii as 3.3m, 3.2m and 3.1m respectively. Both state the GfK Chart-Track, as of January 3, 2009 as there source. So which one, if either is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmcgregoruk (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The sourced article quotes the GfK figures as 1.9m, 3.2m and 4.9m, so this page is correct and the other has been vandalised. --James (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1 million is not "best-selling"

The criteria for this list does not match its title. A game console that sells 1 million units is actually quite a failure. You can see towards the bottom of these lists that the consoles mentioned are ones that didn't get anywhere and probably lost a lot of money for all parties involved. A more realistic minimum for "best"-selling would be around 20 million, with "average" being upwards of 10 million. 1 million is way too low a threshold for inclusion on this list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. The 3DO for example, was definitely not considered a success. I would start at 5 million though. Consider: if a console has sold 1 million or more it's on Wikipedia's list of 'best-selling consoles'. If it's sold less than a million it's on the failures page. There is no in-between, which there should be. I would suggest 5 million + for inclusion on this page, and keep the failures list as is. 194.46.169.235 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Position" numbers

I'm going to add Position numbers, If this is disliked, please discuss here. (I'm a wiki-edit noob) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A porcupine (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by position numbers? If you mean assigning a number to each console that essentially says that it is the Xth best selling console of all time, then no - since we don't know if all the figures are up to date or whatever, that constitutes original research. As it stands at the moment they are arranged by number sold anyway, so it can clearly be seen how they fare based on the figures we have, but currently it doesn't inject any actual ranking into the mix. Alphathon™ (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, so would it be acceptable, simply for the purpose of clarity, to have numbers but not labelled as position? (which would be helpful for people using the page as a quick reference.) Or would this still be against the no original research policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A porcupine (talk • contribs) 21:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that'd still be original research… either that or just arbitrary numbers which wouldn't fall within notability guidelines (the number has to correspond to something, be it a numbered list or some kind of key or whatever). In other words, if they are numbered but that number doesn't specifically mean anything (position etc), it has no place in an encyclopædia. If they are numbered and it corresponds to the number sold (even if that is not explicitly stated), that is original research. I understand the desire to make it easier for quick-reference, but we can only present info that is demonstrably true. Alphathon™ (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll be sure to read through the no original research page now, to avoid me making such an error in the future. A_Porcupine (My page · Talk back to me!· My Contribs!) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. We were all "wiki-edit noobs" once, and it takes a bit of getting used to, but it's fairly simple for the most-part. Hope to see you around. Alphathon™ (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Top 10

There should be something at the bottom showing the top 10 companies with sales. 24.115.88.249 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A top 10 is out of the question (see discussion about other top 10s above for reasons why), but even if that wasn't the case, I somehow doubt such info could be easily compared (so other, similar lists would be pretty difficult to make). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad - I thought this was the List of best-selling games talk page, not List of best-selling game consoles (misread it in my watchlist).

Anyway, like with games (that I thought you were talking about), a top 10 list is out of the question (basically, it constitutes synthesis), but other lists of compiled data like that would also have issues. You can't really directly compare total sales across all consoles as different companies have been active for different lengths of time and for different number of generations. Such a list would be incredibly biased towards Nintendo as they have been around for the longest (consistently) and they have extra skewing factor of the GameBoy, which was prety much unchallenged for about a decade. To put it another way, to simply compare the total life-to-date sales of all of a company's consoles with those of another company would violate Wikipedia's undue weight policy.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sales need Updating / Include all Consoles

Hi you guys need to updated these numbers they are several million off in some cases, and more importantly, you need to include nearly all of the video game consoles, such as the 4-5 consoles that Microsoft made before releasing the Xbox. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.143.234 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re updating numbers, please provide reliable sources and we will be happy to. Re the second, again provide reliable sources and do note that this list is limited to consoles that have sold at least one million units. Anomie⚔ 03:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

List of order for the PS3 & Xbox 360

Might be a bit silly, but wouldn't it make sense for the PS3 to be above the Xbox 360? I say this, because they may have sold just about the same amount, but the PS3 did it in a smaller time frame. Just a small adjustment I thought might want to be made.68.102.207.243 (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Then every console with matching sales would have to be sorted that way, which is not practical. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Manufacturer's table

I've revamped the unwieldy manufacturer's table. Now its simple addition based on sourced statistics already present in the article. Why is there an exception to this standardization with sub-1 million selling consoles? [5] « Ryūkotsusei » 16:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This "standardization" is ultimately misleading. Atari did have handheld consoles, while microsoft did not, and yet, microsoft share the last place with Atari, instead of being last alone as it is in reality.

About "personal attacks":

- You disqualified every external link, which said PS3 sold more than xbox360, you even removed a referer to another Wiki article and the official reports released by Sony, just to prevent microsoft sinking down to last place in the 7th generation, while the reality is that xbox360 sold the least in this round.

- While you thrown out every new data for PS3 and reset the numbers the last december's (!) data, you constantly updated the article with the newest numbers of xbox360.

- You called yourself 'final authority to decide how much PS2 has been sold in this year', just to "legalize" a subtraction from the numbers of PS3 and then locked the article.

- Whatever argument has been told to you, you ignored it or refered to some Wiki rule, to "illegalize" an argument, for example 'dont use wiki as source'. Is not Wikipedia a reliable source? If a validated data is present in another article i cannot refer to it, just because a rule?

- You thrown out Atari datas several time, just to prevent microsoft sinking to last place in the handheld manufactors list.

Since Wikipedia is full of microsoft trolls (both paid and faithful), who constantly faking facts and datas both in historical and actual topics too; what could i thought about your deeds, since you've done great efforts to cosmetic microsoft results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.135.71 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please keep the forum "console-warz" naming-calling to yourself. Name-calling is name-calling.

• "Atari did have handheld consoles", okay, how many got to one million?
• "This "standardization" is ultimately misleading." The table links to a annotation 3 times which says "Total amount of each individual console with at least 1 million units sold." The only way to make this anymore clearer is to move the sentence right above the table.
• "Is not Wikipedia a reliable source?" No, its not. We don't cite other wikis as well.
• I suggest you start reading the annotations...Its not my fault Sony hide their figures. Btw, '2005' comes before '2006' and 'M' comes before 'S'. That's the way this table's default sorting is setup with any platform sharing identical sales... for consistency. « Ryūkotsusei » 02:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not about "console-warz", it's about reality.

• None, but "less than one million" does not equals "absolute zero". At least the list should contain this information, that it's "less than one million".
• How much people did read that? People just sees the numbers and accepts them, they do not read the "fine print", neither on contracts, neither in dictionaries. And if Wikipedia is about informing people, then it should be the most direct. Actually this list should contain all consoles and handhelds, not just ones which sold more than one million.
• This argument is unacceptable. If an information is validated, then it is a valid data. Just because it appears on another Wiki page, it will not be invalid. Rules does not overwrite reality.
• You talking about consistency, but in your consistency 'M' comes before 'A' and 'X' comes before 'P'. You can "explain" the second one as 'the first column has higher priority', but what about the 'M'/'A' inconsistency in the manufactor list? If you order the list by handhelds, then Atari should be higher than microsoft, even by company name. And as for the 'X'/'P', i think the first column of the tables should contain the console names, not the companies, since that is the primary information here "best selling consoles", people search for consoles here. BTW, Sony did not hide their figures, it's not my fault, that you do not accept a validated number and refuse to add the new one to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.240.234 (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If people can't read, that's their fault. This is called "List of best-selling game consoles" yet you want to change the very definition to include everything? You could've just propose that criteria from the beginning instead of spewing accusations. There's already List of video game consoles and Comparison of handheld game consoles - revamp those. Nobody else had a problem with this being a best-sellers list.

Whether or not to swap console name with that of the company is subjective to me. That would have to be raised in a peer review or WT:VG to see if its even worth the effort.

"Rules does not overwrite reality." Then make your own website, because that link is Wikipedia policy. Read and understand the basics here. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The articles linked by you are neither shows the sellings, nor have a summarized list of all generations. This is the article which summarize the total sales. Does it conflict with Wikipedia rules if i clone this article as 'all console sales' and extend it with all console and handheld with all manufactors? For the false accusations, i apologize. Based on your actions i thought you're "cleaning up" for microsoft.

I am afraid i do not understand you. Does this mean, if i swap the two columns, you won't undo it?

"My own website?" I thought Wikipedia is a common property of the whole mankind, including me. Am i wrong and is Wikipedia the property (and speaking-tube) of different lobbies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.135.71 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

←)My point is lesser sales like that should be elsewhere and can be added elsewhere if not present. This list is only for the best or million-sellers. No different than List of highest-grossing films, List of best-selling albums or List of best-selling books. List of best-sellers is a common thing in news media, and as such, this has a list. Also, I'm not opposed to swapping the two columns, but indifferent. So if you do it won't be reverted unless I hear back from a peer review or whatever that it should. Lastly, you may want to look at Wikipedia's five pillars and click through that. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll swap the columns, then clone the article and extend it with all known consoles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.135.71 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay swap that, but did you misunderstood me with excluding sub-1 million sales? By "elsewhere" I mean not here at all, just anywhere else. « Ryūkotsusei » 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

By "not here", you mean, not in this article, or not in Wikipedia? My idea was to clone this article as 'all console sales' and include all existing consoles and handhelds in the cloned article and not to modify 'best selling consoles'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.135.71 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just this article. You're fine. « Ryūkotsusei » 02:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.135.71 (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 00:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

List of million-selling game consoles → List of best-selling game consoles – Compare to List of best-selling game consoles by region and List of best-selling video games. An explanation in the lead can easily mentioned that sales from 1 million are mentioned, like List of best-selling Nintendo 3DS video games does. (@Sergecross73:, @Masem:) Soetermans. T / C 15:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Support And additionally, I don't see why to keep the "by region" separate. Just an extra place to maintain the same sources/numbers. -- ferret (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Future sales projections for Xbox 360 and Xbox One

You'll notice in the reference note for both the xbox 360 and xbox one is the following article:

a b c d Microsoft report figures sold inside retail channels. Xbox 360: 78.2 million sold by the end of Microsoft's 2013 fiscal year (June 2013).[29] During the next two fiscal quarters ending September 2013 (Q1) and December 2013 (Q2), Microsoft sold 1.2 million[30] and 3.5 million units respectively.[31] 800 thousand sold during Q3 2014.[32] Xbox One: During Q2 and Q3 2014, 3.9 million[31] and 1.2 million were sold respectively.[32]

The figures that have been used and included in the totals are from Q2 and Q3 of 2014, Q2 is only halfway through and Q3 has not even begun yet. These are what the company is predicting they will sell in the future, not currently sold consoles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.60.28 (talk • contribs)

Microsoft's fiscal year runs from July 1 (this year) to June 30 (next year). [6] We're in the last quarter of their year - Q4. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Added lifespan end and total lifespan columns

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_million-selling_game_consoles&diff=640387186&oldid=640286157

"needs a lot of work for that to be accurate"

Care to explain it more verbosely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.139.193.158 (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Most consoles on the list will need another source stating how long it stayed on the market, or year of discontinuation. If you could list those sources below (just paste the url, or book title with page, etc), then I can check through them and add the columns back with the references. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. I used the data about discontinuation from the Wiki articles, so if there is a reference about the discontinuation in the articles of the consoles, i can only use that. BTW, what do you mean: "There is no such thing as a Megadrive on Sega." Sega Genesis is Sega Mega Drive. It's called like this on everywhere on earth, except for North America, that's where it only called Genesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.174.94 (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a good idea, but the problem with lists is once you add a column or row that data will need its own source. I'll keep this conversation here as a reminder to later implement it. User Tomandjerry211 made that comment you mentioned. This list simply wikilink to whatever the article name is. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Meanwhile i had another idea: if we know how much years a console had run and how much it sold, then we can calculate an average "sold per year" column. Can we do that with Wiki engine automatically by dividing the two columns, or it has to be done by manually? And will this column need source too, even if the source is two other column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.174.94 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

←) Can potentially be misleading for multiple systems lacking a final sale figure. « Ryūkotsusei » 04:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Units shipped vs. units sold

The list shows the number of sold units for the PS4 and shows the number of shipped units for the xbox one. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.153.85 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft will not disclose anything more recent than shipped totals. Xbox units sold through to consumers is very outdated. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

SNK

Between the Neo Geo AES, CD, Pocket, and Pocket Color, SNK easily has sold over a million units and should be placed in that box of companies which sold over a million. The strictness of what looks to be a sole individual in what constitutes a reliable source is odd. If the source stating the Neo Geo Pocket Color sold 2 million units isn't reliable enough for this page, it isn't reliable enough for the NGPC's page itself.User:Cax17 (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor Table Formatting

Current generation in Italics

I suggest that systems that are still being sold are written in italics.189.9.20.10 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, but I'm unable to use italics due to Wiki's style guidelines so a symbol will have to do. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Change the cross symbol for current consoles

Currently this "†" symbol is used to indicate current systems, it looks like a cross/RIP symbol. Placing it next to the console looks like the console died. A better solution will be to use another symbol like: * or ∞ or ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.171.31.33 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree, when I saw the icon close to Nintendo 3DS, I wanted to edit with a message like "It's not because the Switch is here that it is dead" but after I saw the others PS4, WII U,... Please change the icon, there is not even a legend, you have to look at the first paragraph of the section to understand. --Pokelayton (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Table sorting

I've converted the first table in the article to the new HTML5 jquery.tablesorter syntax, which allows us to get rid of the CSS-hidden text in every cell in favor of sorting directly by the numbers in the column text. See the line for SG-1000/Master System for how to handle special cases.

Please test it and report any problems; if it works fine, we can convert the rest of the tables too. Anomie⚔ 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Works for me in Firefox 17, Chromium 22, and IE8 (normal and "compatibility"). Anomie⚔ 16:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Since no one else replied, I went ahead and converted the rest of the tables. Anomie⚔ 18:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (bot edit)

Part 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on List of best-selling game consoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Part 2

[...] Please take a moment to review my edit. [...]

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Vandalism

enough with the edit warring

I have fully protected the page for a few days in response to the edit war that has been going on here. I could just as easily have issued some blocks, so keep that in mind when the protection expires. If you are unable to reach a consensus through discussion here, pursue dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically, this IP updated the sales number for a system with some random site. I put a {{verify}} tag on it. When the IP removed it, I put it back and asked the IP to provide a reliable source to back it up. The IP again removed it, accused me of vandalism, and said the burden of proof was on me to show that the site was unreliable. I didn't remove the site or revert the numbers, I just put a verify tag on it. If the info is real, a reliable source like GameSpot, IGN, or Sony themselves will have the info (since the site supposedly got it from a Sony press release). TJ Spyke 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The only exception to the edit warring policy is blatant vandalism. You are both incorrect to be accusing the other of it. This is a content dispute. Maybe try getting a third opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop changing figures without new citations

As above. I know the 360 has sold 40 million, but seriously, the source says 39 million. Change the source if you want to change the figure. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the Mega Drive/Genesis figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.236.18 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[7] Apparently, we're the final authority to determine whether or not PS2s were sold in 2012. Sony has been combining PS3 and PS2 figures for quite some time making it impossible to get an exact figure for either console. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Who degraded the page?

I'm sorry but it feels really stupid to have this page limited to only the big three, can we maybe bring the other over 1 million sales consoles back please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.40.75.237 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've restored it. Looks like a new editor had done a major trimming of the list without discussing with anyone. I'm against it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 10:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.40.75.237 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests

16 July 2013

PrivateMasterHD (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What edit did you want to request? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

3 March 2017

Xbox One sales at 26 million as of early 2017. Current entry says 10 million, but the source is from 2014.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-sales-reach-26-million-report/1100-6447023/

Should be pretty cut and dry. 2604:2000:F843:4800:C14:60D:1DD3:21A3 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It is cut and dry. See the section directly above. 26 million is an unofficial, unrelated company's estimate. This list documents official sales figures. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

5 March 2017

The Nintendo Wii U is no longer a current generation console. The Nintendo Switch is, however, we don't know just how many Nintendo Switch's are sold, however, I believe Nintendo dispatched 2 million for launch on March 3rd.

What I think you should do is remove the green highlight on the Wii U and remove the # and add the Nintendo Switch as the current generation, 2017 launch, and estimated 2 million units sold, so just put 'est. 2 million.' The 2017 video gaming wiki is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_in_video_gaming#January.E2.80.93March and the official nintendo switch wiki is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch .

Here's the difficult part... handheld or home. You can put them in both or add a new hybrid section, you choose.

That concludes my request. DWFrozen (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should add Switch figures yet. They made a comment like 4 months ago that they were aiming to ship 2 million units for launch. I think we should wait until they announce how much they actually sold. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Agreed. I'll probably just put the device in only the first table along with a symbol indicating its a hybrid console. Thoughts? « Ryūkotsusei » 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. And as your edit summary indicated, it wouldn't actually belong on there until it cracks 1 million, correct? Do we usually reject "shipped" figures and just use sold figures? (Just checking - I'm newer to actively maintaining this article.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that was @Ferret:! I use both figures. If sources later popup that greatly undermine the reported "shipped" numbers (manufacturer buyback, devices thrown out, etc), we'll add a note or something. That's more to do with discontinued products though. For Nintendo, whatever is used will always be usurped by its updated "Historical Data" report every quarter. « Ryūkotsusei » 03:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

27 March 2017

Change data-sort-value in below markup to "26" and change the "as of" date to January 2017, i.e.:

From: Stnagy (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

7 May 2017

Change PS Vita (4 million to 15.5 million) and PS3 (to 86.8 millon) sales, based on this reference: http://www.vgchartz.com/#graph_menu 2804:14C:71:23C8:F07E:E03A:E18E:BA81 (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done VGChartz is not a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That's stupid. It is the best source available. Moreover, the data is outdated now for at leasr 2 years and PS3 is higher than XBone. If you're not working at Microsoft, you should use the best available source until someone else finds the better one 95.26.6.193 (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined. Better source needed. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The current consensus is that VGChartz is not a usable source on Wikipedia. As is, it cannot be added to the article. If you wish to add such a source, you'd have to change the community consensus on it. Feel free to start up a new discussion in an attempt to do so at WT:VGRS. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

24 May 2017

The area to change is here: Nintendo Switch current generation consoleshybrid video game console Nintendo 2017 2.74 million

This area on the main chart needs the console number to be changes to at LEAST 3 Million. The info is outdated,and so change 2.74 million, to 3.64 million JohnieApp (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

3 July 2017

Please update Xbox One Sales from >10 million to >26 million, as of January 2017 (See sources below)

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-sales-reach-26-million-report/1100-6447023/ http://www.businessinsider.com/playstation-4-ps4-xbox-one-sales-2017-6?IR=T https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/01/reports-ps4-is-selling-twice-as-well-as-xbox-one-overall/

Not done for now: The note attached to Xbox One's figures already notes that there are estimates in the 25-30 million range. -- ferret (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

27 July 2017

Ibrahim Elkilany (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

30 July 2017

Hello, I would like to request a change to the sales of the PS3 and the Xbox 360 consoles. They haven't been updated in awhile and I found the most recent updated sales info of them, at this website, updated somewhere in the last two years.-http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/ The PS3 has sold 86.88 million worldwide and the Xbox 360 has sold 85.80 million worldwide, placing PS3 up above Xbox 360. If someone could do that, or tell me how it'd be very much appreciated. The other consoles on this list should, and can be updated as well, to give the true info. RedStinger22 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - VG Chartz is not considered a usable or reliable source on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Xbox One sales?

This article puts Xbox One at 10 million units, while the Xbox One article states this sentence in the sales section with a citation: "In January 2016 the CFO of Electronic Arts reported during a financial call that the Xbox One has sold "around 18 to 19 million" units." Why is there a discrepancy? 104.171.214.188 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The most recent official numbers is 10 million shipped units, stated by a Microsoft representative. All other statistics since then have been estimates or rumors from third parties. Microsoft has never revealed anything further. -- ferret (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried to update Xbox One sales to the lowest estimate by third-party vendors which is listed in the source as 25 million. User Ferret reverted these changes twice and put this article in semi-protected mode, making it harder for people to edit this article. He says that there was a consensus that this article only use official numbers. I do not see that there was any discussion here on official numbers, so where is this consensus? Microsoft does not wish to release official numbers because they are dwarfed by Sony's Playstation 4. Does that mean information must be suppressed because Microsoft will not release their official numbers? Must the public make their own wild guesses about Xbox One sales when there are unofficial sources, which are very reputable I might add, that have released very good estimates about their sales? Rightling (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• When we're talking about lists or infoboxes, we have to go by official numbers, for a few reasons. First off, there's no room to explain the context (Who's estimate is it, how'd they come to it, etc). Secondly, there's the "apples to oranges" problem - its not a correct comparison to compare official figures to estimates. Thirdly, there is going to be discrepancies, since different places are going to have different estimates, which doesn't work, because this is a chart. One estimate is 23 million, another is 26 million. Which do we chose? Why? How do we display it if we've got large ranges to deal with? For example, if its estimated to be at both 23 million and 26 million, but another system is at 25 million. Do we put it above or below the 25 million estimate?
• To be clear, its fine to use estimates in the Xbox One article in the prose - where you can give it the proper context. ("Research Firm X estimates Xbox One has sold 26 million units, based off internal methodology from active user accounts"). But it can't be used in infoboxes or charts, because there's no way to give it proper context.
• For what its worth, we have the same issue with the PS Vita, and we handle it the same way there too. (Analysts predicted it at 10 million at the end of 2015, but we're stuck with the 4 million number because its the last official figure.) So its not like Microsoft is getting singled out or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Serge covers all the details. This is also why the very extensive note about Microsoft figures and estimates is there, to explain the situation. The table needs to show the official count, while the note covers the details of why its low and what the estimates are. The protection is because multiple editors have been dealing with reverting this for quite a while. It's been reverted literally dozens of times. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Update

Since the company still refuses to share any sales information even when the Xbox One X is coming out this fiscal quarter and the growing discrepancy between the figures, I've made this change. Lack of manufacturer data happened way too early in the console life cycle instead of the tail end when sales taper off. Perhaps Microsoft will share once the console launches, but who knows. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

While I've long been against this, I'm tired of fighting it, and the figures are wildly out of date. I've now implemented the same for Vita. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

EEDAR from NPD as a sales source?

I was just curious whether Electronic Entertainment Design and Research (EEDAR) from the NPD group would be considered a valid source for looking at lifetime worldwide hardware sales and rankings? It certainly isn't an unreliable source like VGChartz or something and we obviously accept the NPD as a source so it seems to check out to me. Any thoughts? 2601:601:D00:8FF0:205E:C6B7:CE62:4BF5 (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they're a reliable source, but much like NPD, I don't think they release exact figures very often. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay, interesting. For example, if they showed data in a graph that indicated console x had sold what looks to be about, like, 35 million based on a y axis that labels by the 10 millions but doesn't say "Console x sold 34.6 million" is that enough to then say "EEDAR says console x sold more than console y"? Does that make sense? 2601:601:D00:8FF0:8877:6822:971A:DF87 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We can't use data like that, without the numbers. It would represent WP:OR to interpret a graph in that matter and attribute it as a direct statement by EEDAR. I believe I've seen the graph you're referring to as well, and another issue is that we don't know what time frame the numbers applied to. -- ferret (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Without actual numbers, no that would violate WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Just out of curiosity, which part of WP:OR does that violate? If we're talking about the same graph then it can be found here on page 13. It does indicate the time that it is through (December 2016) which is well after the Xbox 360 was discontinued, if I'm not mistaken. When I saw the report, I was surprised because I thought EEDAR would be a reliable source, but I remembered this article listing Xbox 360 over PlayStation 3 in lifetime worldwide sales. To be clear, I absolutely don't think EEDAR's info should be synthesized with other more specific numbers! However the rankings seem to be incorrect based on newer info. Perhaps this source should be noted in some way in the article while the numbers don't change? I just want to make sure the article is accurate and reflecting the newest information we have! 2601:601:D00:8FF0:8877:6822:971A:DF87 (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it involves comparing two incredibly similar looking rectangles on a graph. I don't know the practical application anyways - it's going to be hard to describe in words without any actual numbers. And it can't be represented on the rankings without numbers. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Mostly seems to come from PS3 fans who don't want Xbox 360 to show as having sold more. It happens every couple of months with different rationales and sources (or none). The last time was in Nov, here, as an OR use of EEDAR. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright. This isn't about being a PS3 fan, though, as I've actually never owned a PlayStation in my life, ferret. The rectangles are close, I suppose, Sergecross73, but one of them is clearly higher. It's not unclear in the graph, I don't think. I just think the practical application is that currently the article seems to show outdated information according to this reliable source. I don't think it would be too hard to write that up, actually. In the intro to the rankings a sentence can be added that indicates that the latest information available (the info from EEDAR) showed that the PS3 had sold more globally than the 360 but did not indicate specific numbers. To reiterate, I don't think that this information should be synthesized with specific numbers from the past, and I don't even really think the rankings should change considering the lack of specific numbers. But this is a reliable source and it is the most recent information, so I just think it would be most accurate to make a short note of that discrepancy. 2601:601:D00:8FF0:E162:3BF:2991:904C (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? You dont think there's going to be an issue to add a vague statement with no actual figures that directly contradicts the numbers given? And regarding a subject that fanboys constantly argue over? You can't really believe that's going to work out. Sergecross73 msg me 06:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean, it's just a suggestion because the info is obviously incorrect, unfortunately. I'm not really trying to make anyone angry here. I don't think the statement would be vague. It would say, as of this date, this source noted this console outsold this console but did not provide specific sales numbers. I don't know, it seems like it'd be a pretty simple note to add. It just seems unfortunate that the article should list outdated information only and not the most recent info according to a reliable source as well just because the older info is more specific. I don't want outside arguments from Xbox or PlayStation fans or anyone to get in the way of the article providing the most accurate and up to date information that we have! That's all. 2601:601:D00:8FF0:412C:21F5:30D6:4446 (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not anger, just disbelief that you think this would work long-term. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess I don't really see why it would be untenable, yeah. But also, it just doesn't seem preferable to keep the article out of date and incorrect with no mention of it because some people might not like it.(?) A short note doesn't synthesize, provides newest info, and gives additional context. It seems like it'd make it a more complete and accurate article. 2601:601:D00:8FF0:2911:3581:2F7D:AD6E (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)